The F-35 fighter program is over budget and
behind schedule, but the contractors are working hard to get back cut costs and
adhere to time schedules. One of the most costly components of the F-35 is its
engine made by Pratt & Whitney. The company has announced that it is
working tolower
the price of the engine and that the price could drop even more in the
coming years.

This news comes ahead of the start of negotiations
between the Pentagon and primary contractor Lockheed Martin for the next batch
of fighters. Bennett Croswell, president of Pratt & Whitney military
engines said, "We have activities planned and in place to bring the cost
down in [low-rate initial production] 5."

The fifth batch of F-35 fighters is part of the
LRIP 5 batch. Pratt & Whitney has plans to reduce the cost of the F135
engine to the price of the older F119 engine that the F-22A uses. What exactly
those prices are is unknown since that is proprietary information owned by the
engine builder. Pratt & Whitney has said that it was able to beat the price
target during the negotiations for the fourth batch of fighters and it hoped to
be able to beat pricing again on the fifth batch purchase.

Croswell said, "We're constantly looking at
ways to do even better than what that plan is."

While negotiations are going on for the next batch
of engines, Pratt & Whitney has announced that it has found a way to
increase the thrust of the F135 engine used in the vertically landing version
of the F-35 that will be flown by the Marine Corps. The change will add 100
pounds of thrust to the engine and the company is also trying to reduce the
weight of the engine by 100 pounds.

There are some in Washington that want to see
development of the second F-35 engine renewed. Anamendment
proposedby the House would allow the second engine to be
developed at the cost of the builder. The second engine for the F-35 wasofficially
killedin March.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

It would be a major destabilizing force if we were to severely reduce our ability to project power and cut our defense budget. Countries no longer protected from us would either get invaded or have to build up their own forces. The latter would be interpreted as a hostile action by their neighbors, escalating tensions. Regions would become unstable in our absence. It's called a "power vacuum", look it up.

Let's take South Korea, for example. We spend millions, maybe billions, yearly keeping our "tripwire" force there as well as Naval assets. Let's just say that we remove that. What happens? Assuming North Korea didn't outright invade, South Korea would have to then commence a military buildup. North Korea would then claim their borders are being threatened. Diplomatic relations for the entire region become strained, possibly critically. The potential of military conflicts rise much higher than they would be had we been there.

Great, so you're saying we have to police the world? Ya, that sounds like a sustainable fiscal situation. You're trying to tell me that if we maybe just spent as much as the next say, five, biggest militaries in the world combined (as opposed to the next 15 or so as it stands now) the world would descend into chaos? I doubt it, you're position sounds a little more than slightly alarmist. Most of what is spent isn't spent on a deterrence force in Korea, or other obvious high profile military objectives. It's spent supporting our military contractor welfare program. That's what many people have a problem with, buying things we don't need for fights that aren't coming.

Also, we have unwittingly created plenty of "power vacuums" in the past. I'm not so sure you know what that term really means. Here's a good example of a "power vacuum". When we got rid of Sadaam in Iraq without a solid plan to stabilize the country, then disbanded the military, that created a "power vacuum". You see, all of our military might and we couldn't stop that vacuum from happening, even though we were right there in the middle of the mess. It took 10 years and trillions of dollars to (kinda) fix the situation that started with a high profile military invasion.

I don't make policy, I'm just saying what our doctrine is and that it works.

Also using raw numbers we spend isn't a true portrayal of our military's expenditure. For example, North Korea spends 30% of their GDP on the military. Their people are starving and impoverished. Our military spending as a percentage of GDP is FAR less than many nations.

We could disband the ENTIRE Department of Defense and we would still have a 800 billion dollar deficit. So don't try and pretend that our current military spending isn't sustainable or is breaking us.

quote: That's what many people have a problem with, buying things we don't need for fights that aren't coming.

So you know what fights are "coming"? Hey, can I borrow your crystal ball?

He's saying there are commitments we've made and there could be really awful results if we break them. Our domestic commitments are far more costly than our foreign commitments; people that focus on our overseas expenditures are either missing the point or, especially if they're in office, deliberately avoiding dealing with the problems (because if you mess with people's entitlements you die politically).